The early morning wind was practically calm several days ago as I hiked along a Rock River path in Illinois. The forecast was for clouds all day, but a short-lived patch of blue sky drifted by a couple hours after dawn. Only several images survived the culling process upon review of the results back home. This oddball was one of them -

Cloud Catcher

The twig at the surface of the river is only a small portion of a much larger submerged branch, but here it almost appears to sprout from the sky itself. The clouds are reflected, of course. Their shadowy undersides appear at the cloud tops.

An observation: I used to get bags full of keeper images per outing when I first started chasing the world with a camera about fifteen years ago. As the years have spun by, the keeper ratio has dropped steadily to an average of maybe one or two keepers per outing. I can think of a number of reasons for this to be so, but wonder if others here have experienced the same thing. Thoughts or anecdotes regarding this, anyone?

__________________
Tom Robbins
West of Lake Michigan, East of Mississippi River

The early morning wind was practically calm several days ago as I hiked along a Rock River path in Illinois. The forecast was for clouds all day, but a short-lived patch of blue sky drifted by a couple hours after dawn. Only several images survived the culling process upon review of the results back home. This oddball was one of them -

Cloud Catcher

The twig at the surface of the river is only a small portion of a much larger submerged branch, but here it almost appears to sprout from the sky itself. The clouds are reflected, of course. Their shadowy undersides appear at the cloud tops.

An observation: I used to get bags full of keeper images per outing when I first started chasing the world with a camera about fifteen years ago. As the years have spun by, the keeper ratio has dropped steadily to an average of maybe one or two keepers per outing. I can think of a number of reasons for this to be so, but wonder if others here have experienced the same thing. Thoughts or anecdotes regarding this, anyone?

Beautiful image.

About the keeper rate. I feel as you progress, your eye for artistic design grows and your keeper rate may just be based on your personal critique of your own photos. I've noticed the same but I've also noticed that when I first started taking exposures I would fill a card with 4-800 files in a day or two just snapping away. Now my thoughts have become a bit more premeditated. Instead of bringing out the camera snapping away and looking for gems later, I am thinking about what I want to capture then bring the camera out to go find that idea or vision.

The early morning wind was practically calm several days ago as I hiked along a Rock River path in Illinois. The forecast was for clouds all day, but a short-lived patch of blue sky drifted by a couple hours after dawn. Only several images survived the culling process upon review of the results back home. This oddball was one of them -

Cloud Catcher

The twig at the surface of the river is only a small portion of a much larger submerged branch, but here it almost appears to sprout from the sky itself. The clouds are reflected, of course. Their shadowy undersides appear at the cloud tops.

An observation: I used to get bags full of keeper images per outing when I first started chasing the world with a camera about fifteen years ago. As the years have spun by, the keeper ratio has dropped steadily to an average of maybe one or two keepers per outing. I can think of a number of reasons for this to be so, but wonder if others here have experienced the same thing. Thoughts or anecdotes regarding this, anyone?

Well this is a keeper, Tom. Simple and well spotted and executed. Excellent.

I suspect the reason why the number of keepers has decreased is down to the disposability of digital images. When you only had 36 frames to play with you had to make each one count. My work from the early 80s had a much higher proportion of keepers per roll, some on which can be seen on this site as I have converted some of them with my Nikonscan

You and I were thinking along the same lines about diminishing rates declining over time, Jake. As one gains experience through trial and error, fewer "experiments" are needed as doubtful outcomes can be identified beforehand. The result is saved time and fewer wasted exposures. After that, all photos then taken by the photographer will be filtered through a lens seasoned by experience. The filter's function: is this subject in better light, better conditions, better composed, and etc, etc, than when it was photographed previously? I suspect this filter generally becomes finer with time.

I did not think about the disposability of digital images, Nigel, but your point is a good one. After the purchase costs of camera equipment, computers, and software have drifted out of memory, digital images almost seem as if they are free of charge, don't they? The cost of film and its development, on the other hand, kept the actual costs firmly established on the radar. The result, as you point out, is that "you had to make each one count".

__________________
Tom Robbins
West of Lake Michigan, East of Mississippi River

Another issue is that digital images are only apparently free - if you succumb to the deisre to shoot 800 shots every couple of days when will you find the time to edit them properly? Will you miss some real gems hidden in there and just reproduce the obvious and graphic that grabs you as you rush through the thumbs in a whirl of activity?

The early morning wind was practically calm several days ago as I hiked along a Rock River path in Illinois. The forecast was for clouds all day, but a short-lived patch of blue sky drifted by a couple hours after dawn. Only several images survived the culling process upon review of the results back home. This oddball was one of them -

Cloud Catcher

The twig at the surface of the river is only a small portion of a much larger submerged branch, but here it almost appears to sprout from the sky itself. The clouds are reflected, of course. Their shadowy undersides appear at the cloud tops.

Tom,

I thought to myself, Tom has some fast reaction and would make an excellent sharpshooter. I imagined that was really flying past you in the sky! The result of you looking at the water with your years of experience gave you this rare and impressive shot. Kudos!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Robbins

An observation: I used to get bags full of keeper images per outing when I first started chasing the world with a camera about fifteen years ago. As the years have spun by, the keeper ratio has dropped steadily to an average of maybe one or two keepers per outing. I can think of a number of reasons for this to be so, but wonder if others here have experienced the same thing. Thoughts or anecdotes regarding this, anyone?

I snap too many pictures with my digital camera. However the burden of sorting so many images is real and costly in time and expense of hard drives! Still, the seemingly free cost of digital pictures allows one to experiment. One can do things that one wouldn't do with a film camera. For example, I collect textures from parking lots, gas stations and roadways for use in my collages. Hopefully, they will be used, but I'm never certain. So I make sure I file them under textures, so atl east I can rediscover them.

Also, right now, I use digital for working out what to do before committing a single sheet of 8x10 film. Here's an example of a single shot, planned with digital. This was posted elsewhere in OPF but is worth shwing again.

At the end of a day of shooting, I discovered Jim and Eddie were photographing in a different part of the abandoned Tonopah Silver Mine Museum. The building is easily overlooked as its mostly empty. It has one very interesting small office with a broken down chair. The leather is cracked and the seat couldnt possible take the weight of an adult! So I purloined a small plank and put t over the dangerously fragile center of the seat and had Jm Galli sit down and it held!

The light coming in from the window was very bright. Ideally, I'd have overcome the light with flash and a fast enough shutter speed to get the effect of the evening light and have the shadows opened up just enough. Still, that was not possible. We were packing up!

So here's my grab shot with 8x10 Efke 25 ISO film, scanned at 600 dpi with a simple desktop all in one printer-scanner, MP610 I got for free when I bought my wife her iMac!

Jim has taken wonderful pictures of the chair and other treasures. His perfectly balanced pictures are here.

Because I had only Jim's consent for just one picture, as it was late in the day, this shot had to work. So I took pains. With digital I might have gotten the same result, but there would have been 20-40 shots and to what benefit? So I feel that digital allows us to experiment, move fast, see the result immediately but using LF forces us to prefilter everything much more severely.

I have less winners with digital for sure! I love the medium but hate the burden of sorting too much. I was better, I think shooting with film. What does one want immediacy or magic?

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.

Mike and Asher, thank you both for your comments regarding the photo. I had not considered the time needed to sort through files when thinking of digital photography being free. Your observation, Asher, about the filtering at the front end with film vs at the back end with digital is very much worth further thought. The digital age has changed many things, some readily apparent and other less so.

Thanks also for the Jim G photo and the link to the post regarding the mine. I didn't see it the first time around.

__________________
Tom Robbins
West of Lake Michigan, East of Mississippi River